Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

Arklight

Rinoa wrote: »

They denield state doping of their athletes, until it was proven beyond all doubt.

It!!!8217;s nice to think that Olympic athletes are all 100% clean apart from the odd misadvised prescription for a sprain now and again, and the cheating communists.

This is Eugen Sandow, the most famous natural bodybuilder we can be sure was natural, from 1900, by virtue of the fact that steroids weren!!!8217;t invented until the 30s.



Eugen did nothing other than resistance training to build muscle mass, and was an undefeated strongman of the era.

No runner of the era would have had an upper body as built as Eugen and no gymnast would have worked his legs as big, because why would you build up weight that's just slowing you down?

Yet Eugen's torso is barely average compared to most of the 100 metres runners at the last Olympics, and his legs don't stack up well against the gymnasts. In spite of the fact that all he did was resistance training and was the strongest man in the world a century ago, he wouldn!!!8217;t get through the opening heats of the power lifting events today.

There are also certain features of muscle development that are very prevalent with steroid and growth hormone use. Namely, bulging over development of slow twitch muscle fibres such as abdominals and deltoids. Yet it if you look at the medals podiums of the track and field and gymnastics teams since the 80s, this is all you see.

The Russian's protest was that all the other countries are using drugs, but it was only Russia that was picked on.

cogito

Rough_Justice wrote: »

Given that the EU average is 7.8% yes it is another reason why we were right to leave.
After all, the EU haven't exactly helped Greece have they?
Or Spain.
Or Italy.
Or France.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268830/unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/

Not exactly. The Greek unemployment rate has just gone up again to 21.2%.

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

The national debt has doubled under the Tories to £555 billion. The party who claimed they would eliminate a yearly deficit in 5 years and then begin producing a surplus, has left us with ballooning debt with no end in sight.

And oh look, there'll be a fire sale of the NHS to American health companies because there isn’t any money after 8 years of the Tories for anything other than selling off the few things that remain in public ownership.

Any pretence that the Conservatives are good stewards of the economy is complete bunkum. The UK simply cannot afford another term of the Tories. They’ve borrowed more than every Labour government put together now and their only strategy for raising revenue is to give the rich tax cuts, hand out £9 billion a year in housing benefit to private landlords, and slash spending to the bone, while pulling up the drawbridge in some paroxysm of xenophobia to two dozen countries we are happily aligned with.

The reason that 'older voters' such as yourself don’t like Corbyn has nothing to do with you wanting a fairer society, better public services, and being worried that Labour's costed manifesto doesn’t add up.

The reason you don’t like him is that you are right wing. You're not centre left, you aren’t centrist, you aren’t even centre right. You are right wing and all this silly, “Oh I vote Tory but I have to hold my nose I just don’t have any alternative,” is nonsense.

You and your buddies on here have been complaining about so-called austerity for years. Now you're complaining about the national debt. If you are suggesting that the Tories should have stopped borrowing so that the national debt didn't increase, what sort of austerity would you have expected? And do you seriously think that Labour wouldn't have increased the national debt by as much if not more?

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

You and your buddies on here have been complaining about so-called austerity for years. Now you're complaining about the national debt. If you are suggesting that the Tories should have stopped borrowing so that the national debt didn't increase, what sort of austerity would you have expected? And do you seriously think that Labour wouldn't have increased the national debt by as much if not more?

Yes I’m afraid so. You see, I think this governemt is useless. It was awful under Cameron, bad under Cameron and Clegg, but this incarnation is appalling.

It is good at doing exactly what the Tory Party was set up to do in the 1830s, however. Representing the interests of the landed gentry.

Lornapink

ilovehouses wrote: »

We're doing great in the EU - I'm sure you've mentioned this occasionally.

..but we should leave because others aren't?

Arkwright, Moby and others say we're doing terrible, that the Tories have ruined the economy.
You say we're doing great.
Prior to the referendum Labour said we had a broken Britain, the 1%, a cost of living crisis.
Make your minds up.

Lornapink

Moby wrote: »

The new jobs created by new trade deals will in no way compensate for the ones we will lose when we leave the EU.

Which trade deals will we lose? Third party nations will disrupt their sales to the UK will they? So Hyundi for example will just suddenly stop exporting to the UK? Why are Japanese car firms (not made in UK) heavily advertising in the UK given they're planning to stop trading here?


Sounds a bit like Project Fear to me.

Lornapink

buglawton wrote: »

4
.3% for the UK. Japan and Singapore have half that.

.

Remainers tell me we mustn't 'descend' into being a low tax Singapore. Yet Singapore has a great economy and fantastic social housing system.
Japan has tiny immigration, very low unemployment and of course they're richer than us all done in the absence of the miracle mass immigration we're told is essential. I suspect they even manage to train enough nurses & get the fruit picked.

Moby

Lornapink wrote: »

Arkwright, Moby and others say we're doing terrible, that the Tories have ruined the economy.
You say we're doing great.
Prior to the referendum Labour said we had a broken Britain, the 1%, a cost of living crisis.
Make your minds up.

The OBR published their predictions for growth in the next five years following Hammonds spring statement. They predict us to grow at no more than 1.5% a year. That is the most pessimistic forecast we have ever had. Now of course you will dismiss it, I fully accept that but 1. I believe it and so do others and 2. if you have plans for our brexit future which demonstrate how it's all going to work out fine please share them with us because all I hear from brexiteers are aspirations and hopes. If you are going to dismiss the evidence/experts etc that I and others produce at least have the graciousness to produce your own figures/evidence!

gfplux

Why would sky news say this, very strange. The suggestion is that there will be difficulties at Dover. Very silly.

https://news.sky.com/story/brexit-forensics-playing-chicken-with-the-channel-tunnel-11291767

QUOTE
The scenarios described to Sky News have been broadly interpreted by the industry as "hard Brexit", "soft Brexit" and "no deal". It is the last scenario that has raised the most eyebrows in industry.

"This is what we call the 'Throw Open the Borders option,'" said one operator. The scenario involves the UK on day one of Brexit unilaterally deciding not to enforce customs checks, and other border checks, and presuming that a reciprocal approach will be taken by the European Union, and thus at least temporarily maintaining a non-negotiated form of frictionless trade in goods.

Indeed, although a number of involved operators confirmed this approach as a scenario being discussed by the Government, the Treasury appears to have broadly confirmed it to MPs earlier this month.

The Treasury minute in response to the Public Accounts Committee's excoriating recent report on Brexit border preparations says that "the Border Planning Group has reviewed all border locations (ports, airports and the Channel Tunnel) to understand the implications at these locations of controls and checks; and concluded that there are a number of locations, especially 'roll on - roll off' ports (for example, Dover), where significant extra controls and checks would be difficult to accommodate without affecting the flow of traffic and people".

This is a highly significant admission from the Government of the logistical impossibility of border checks at crossings designed from inception to operate without any. Put simply, there is no space.
END QUOTE

gfplux

This was said by a Minister on Question Time so it must be true.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-minister-suggests-plan-avoiding-12197899?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=f9777b3210-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_03_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-f9777b3210-190026745

QUOTE
A Tory minister last night suggested the grand plan for avoiding traffic delays and jams at Dover after Brexit is... to not check trucks.
Estimates suggest that just a two minute check on lorries would result in queues 29 miles long.
The Transport Secretary seemed to admit that the Governments plan for avoiding delays and traffic jams of trucks entering the UK post-Brexit is to simply not check them.

Chris Grayling was asked by a member of the Question Time audience in the port town of Dover: "Will the garden of England become the lorry park of England after Brexit?"
"The first is that we will maintain a free-flowing border at Dover we will not impose checks in the port.

"It is utterly unrealistic to do so, we don't check lorries now, we're not going to be checking lorries in Dover in the future, absolutely clear it cannot happen.
END QUOTE